Anti human spirituality

[Joshe]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Pure conciousness implies a a witness, a subject and an object. An static center where the experience happens, an experiencer and an experience. 

I agree. In my most heightened states, the presence of the “witness” is most dominant, but the witness isn’t Josh. There has always been perception. Perception has never ceased. Consciousness seems to require a witness, wether that witness be my ego or whatever the witness is when my ego takes a back seat, there is always a witness. 

[UnbornTao]

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

I agree. In my most heightened states, the presence of the “witness” is most dominant, but the witness isn’t Josh. There has always been perception. Perception has never ceased. Consciousness seems to require a witness, wether that witness be my ego or whatever the witness is when my ego takes a back seat, there is always a witness. 

The point is to reach a state where there is no witness. The witness is always a center, and a center is an absolute limit. When the limits dissolve, the witness merges with what appears, and everything is revealed as flow. You are not the witness of the flow, but the flow itself, and in it, the witness appears as a form in the flow, perceiving itself as alive manifestation of the limitlessness 

[Joshe]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The point is to reach a state where there is no witness. The witness is always a center, and a center is an absolute limit. When the limits dissolve, the witness merges with what appears, and everything is revealed as flow. You are not the witness of the flow, but the flow itself, and in it, the witness appears as a form in the flow, perceiving itself as alive manifestation of the limitlessness 

I see. Thank you! 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Pure conciousness implies a a witness, a subject and an object. An static center where the experience happens, an experiencer and an experience. 

No, that's just your idiosyncratic definition of the word. What is usually meant by "witness" is beyond subject and object, not limited to relations. It's that which exists beyond all the subjects and objects and witnesses all of them.

Edited August 15 by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No, that's just your idiosyncratic definition if the word. What is meant by "witness" usually is beyond subject and object, not limited to relations. It's that which exists beyond all the subjects and objects and witnesses all of them.

If it's witnessing all of them, it's related to them and is therefore just another form of relational flow. If what you're suggesting is that it's something inherently separate from relational flow, immutable, then it's an absolute limit, which would imply that reality is limited.

That witness that seems absolute in meditation is a very detached mental state in which there seems to be stillness in contrast to the more dynamic usual state, but still maintaining duality.

[Carl-Richard]

55 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If it's witnessing all of them, it's related to them

No.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

10 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Natasha Tori Maru @Natasha Tori Maru

Do you want to talk about this, or would you rather tell me I'm this or that?

I just don't think we can continue a dialogue. I went into this conversation 1) hoping for open-mindedness regarding trying to understand each other's perspective and 2) assuming at least we can agree on english terms and definitions (and assumed base understanding of terms). And if not to refine them to an agreed upon definition.

I understand your worldview and agree with most of it. I do not agree with your definition for 'anti-human' because you haven't yet had the revelation of no-self, and how it is more human than the ego self. Selflessness, sacrifice, all naturally lead from no self - some of the higher tenants of elevated consciousness. It doesn't mean ignoring emotions of deleting things.

There are just a key set of truths I operate from that mean I am confusing you. I think because it is outside the realm of your experience it appears 'inhuman' when it is just an unknown. 

In addition - 2 more things are happening: you don't seem able to recognise where you are assuming and drawing false conclusions. Ie thinking no-self is no emotion. And your explanations often loop off into other points. Instead of addressing the question directly, often you turn the paragraph off onto a tangent that is correct, but has nothing to do with the question.

And because of that, the contemplation isn't working.

So the above is why I don't think we cannot continue.

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

because you haven't yet had the revelation of no-self, and how it is more human than the ego self.

It isn't no self, It is an open energetic configuration of the self in which the self realizes that it is the total flow of reality. It is still the human self, only it is not closed in on itself. There is an opening through which it flows without limits. Then it realizes that it is not limited to this life cycle. It sees it with total clarity, so it perceives altruism as inevitable, effortless, and egotism and narcissism as stupidity, a mistake due short sight 

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

No.

Ah 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It isn't no self, It is an open energetic configuration of the self in which the self realizes that it is the total flow of reality. It is still the human self, only it is not closed in on itself. There is an opening through which it flows without limits. Then it realizes that it is not limited to this life cycle. It sees it with total clarity, so it perceives altruism as inevitable, effortless, and egotism and narcissism as stupidity, a mistake due short sight 

If the self is open - there are no borders. So, no defined self. So, no-self. Which is why I keep repeating you are saying the same thing.

Only in your word-view you seem to think the self is something real - which contradicts this openness unlimited concept yes? How can a limited thing, the self, be unlimited - openness, without also being an illusion to be realized as the paradox it is? 'Cracking open' the self to be open is actually the process of realising the self is an illusion - you just seem to have a personal issue with the potential conclusions that could come about as a result.

Anyway, I guess I'm answering so you can dance around with some more wordviews  

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If the self is open - there are no borders. So, no defined self. So, no-self. Which is why I keep repeating you are saying the same thing.

Only in your word-view you seem to think the self is something real - which contradicts this openness unlimited concept yes? How can a limited thing, the self, be unlimited - openness, without also being an illusion to be realized as the paradox it is? 'Cracking open' the self to be open is actually the process of realising the self is an illusion - you just seem to have a personal issue with the potential conclusions that could come about as a result.

Anyway, I guess I'm answering so you can dance around with some more wordviews  

Because it's open in part and closed in great part. If it were totally open you wouldn't know the difference between a stone and a dog and you couldn't operate as a human. 

It's not dance around and arguing to win, it's to point that of no self is just a misunderstanding, and this is important because anyone who think that the no self is the goal is in a trap

Edited August 16 by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

it's to point that of no self is just a misunderstanding, and this is important because anyone who think that the no self is the goal is in a trap

It is not the goal.

It is just natural to realize it is an illusion. 

It just happens on the path to truth.

And yes - you still need a self. It is always going to be present. But you need to understand that no-self isn't about obliterating the self. It is about realizing it is an illusion. And that you are attached to it - and it brings you suffering. You realize it is an illusion, and it lets you shed and do away with all the unnecessary parts of you that you thought were needed. It is not a trap at all - it is the openness that you speak of.

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Because it's open in part and closed in great part. If it were totally open you wouldn't know the difference between a stone and a dog and you couldn't operate as a human.

Then why are you going on about how you have to open the self? If you cannot do it? So you are saying open the self but then keep the self? You are saying to open the self, but intimating it cannot be done. The implication here is that the self is causing issues.... which is true. So why keep all those parts of it you don't need? And if you manage to do so - where do the parts go that are dissolved to be more 'open'? Do you see how they don't exist, if you can dissolve them, no matter how hard that is? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

The idea behind no self is this:

You realize the 'self' you think you ARE is not what you are at all.

You see that it is an illusion.

But you also see that it is needed for survival.

Seeing it for the illusion it is, enables you to let go of all the parts you thought you needed. You can release negative attachments. You stop telling yourself all the stories about yourself - your history - that create unnecessary suffering.

It's not about your body being an illusion. It is real. It is about the 'complex' you think is you - thoughts, ideas, concepts - is all in your head. 

No-self is what you term as 'opening up' - it is the realization that enables the opening. This is the part you keep saying is so hard to dissolve. It's no issue when you see the illusion.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

30 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's not dance around and arguing to win, it's to point that of no self is just a misunderstanding

If you think you aren't arguing to win you are mistaken 

It is YOU who misunderstands no-self.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Okay. Okay - how about we restart with:

Define what you conceive is 'no self' in one sentence. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Okay. Okay - how about we restart with:

Define what you conceive is 'no self' in one sentence. 

Easy

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The idea behind no self is this:

You realize the 'self' you think you ARE is not what you are at all.

You see that it is an illusion.

That's the idea of no self.

First, it doesn't consider that the self has a genetic basis. This is totally obvious; all the emotional mechanisms that are the structural foundation of the self are innate. Second, it assumes that thoughts are false and sensory information is real, implying that the animal state is more true and desirable than the human state. The ideal is to get rid of thoughts, which are interpretations and therefore illusions. But sight and touching are real, pure, direct awareness. The past and future are illusory; only the present exists, where you can touch, see, and hear. This is a higher category of reality, direct. The mental is illusory, unreal.

Sight and that are mental images, same than conceptual ideas. Both are created by the brain . Sight is created based on photons that penetrate the retina and the conceptual world through neuronal synapses occurring primarily in the frontal lobe. Both are representations of external reality, and both are the reality.

Mental reality is reality, and sensory reality is the same. The brain is reality, adopting a structure that in turn creates structures. There are no categories of reality. There is only one category: reality. 

Then the mind can operate like a closed system, closed in itself, as use to do, or can operate open to the flow that really is. The mental structure changes, but it is still a self, but a self that allows the flow and that recognize itself as the living flow taking a form all time, open to it's true nature.

If you believe the idea that the self is an illusion, you are closed in a static idea of consciousness as a screen where the reality happens: duality 

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

you think you aren't arguing to win you are mistaken 

I'm arguing to point a mistake that make modern spirituality a path that ends in a trap.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If you believe the idea that the self is an illusion, you are closed in a static idea of consciousness as a screen where the reality happens: duality 

Okay fundamentally we can end the discussion here - because this is a false conclusion based on some wrong foundational understanding of reality, perspective, experience, being. It's definitely worth re-investigating this one. No self is the ultimate surrender of the ego - the collapse of separation and distinction. Union with other and all else - an inner crucifixion. The self is the barrier to union, and sacrificing the self is the not a destruction, but opening. The highest form of Love. It is not anti-human. You feel just as keenly as the person experiencing a constricting, attached ego self. The whole gamut of human experience - you just don't identify with it and therefore, reduce suffering. The self is the BIGGEST construct humans cling to - identify with - and this causes the suffering. You need to realize just how much YOU are clinging to this. Right now - through this dialogue. Because on the other side of this is pure joy and love of reality. Experience is beautiful - even the mundane. Even the pain. Just another set of experiences I do not judge. It does not serve.

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I'm arguing to point a mistake that make modern spirituality a path that ends in a trap.

Well, you are arguing to be right. Your version of right. Let's not get delusional about how much ego IS involved for you. This whole endeavor is a great example of attachment to the self.

Ciao ciao

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

44 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

you just don't identify with it

Who don't identify with it?